Yes, I am projecting, I will fully admit that. Which is why, as a watch person, I went with a smart watch solution that doesn't mine my data.

Appreciate the honesty, friend. You are awesome.

I never got into the wearables but I for sure use my phone. My phone is degoogled so I use health apps from F-Droid which help with tracking some metrics which also sync with my Nextcloud instance only, or do not request to have internet or network permissions.

I do think, like you that having some into IS useful and in that no government Left or rRght leaning should have your ior my nfo. That's just 1984 -type nightmare fuel.

Do you take your phone everywhere? Does it have a clock you use on it?

So, guess the only difference is that one has an armband and the other you stare at for a lot longer?

If you do not have a phone either, then hats off to you.

Having watched his actual statement, is not that they want your data. That's a red herring in the article.

But that the average American is so out of touch with how food --presumably bad, shitty food and nutrition-- interacts with their body, that them, the individual, being able to know of how, for example, that 2nd Coke, and bag of chips is screwing up your insulin levels, and how it get affected in real time could be a positive drive for change in lifestyle. The fact is that the USA has an obesity pandemic and most people's knowledge of nutritional science can be laughable at best. 60+% of Americans are overweight. And 33% are literally obese, including kids.

You do not have to buy a wearable. They are not making or forcing to you wear a wearable and they are not going to ask you to show papers before you want to enter a restaurant proving that you use or own a wearable. He said that he would prefer it because how do you empower people who know next to nothing? Is it the only way? Nope. Of course not, but the system has been so captured by interest groups that many changes may not be politically feasible.
They could be done in theory but not in practice right now. Europe had s superior take on nutrition than the USA, for example.

Personally, I would never wear a wearable but I also spent a lot of time studying Nutritional Science and attempt to leave a healthy lifestyle. It is an extra load of work that cuts into other things and not many may want to do but it is one that it is worth doing for yourself and the family.

Additionally, I have friends who are Doctors and the concept of wearables is not always well received. Privacy concerns aside, the worry is that it can turn a lot of people into hypochondriacs if they do not fully understand some basics of human anatomy and take raw data out of context. Not to mention a waste of resources if people want to run tests for absolutely everything they think might be wrong with it. It can also be a source for unnecessary stress in some people.

They send it to the same collection agency. They have never denied us care yet.

eat shit and go to hell.

Having watched his actual statement, is not that they want your data. That's a red herring in the article.

But that the average American is so out of touch with how food --presumably bad, shitty food and nutrition-- interacts with their body, that them, the individual, being able to know of how, for example, that 2nd Coke, and bag of chips is screwing up your insulin levels, and how it get affected in real time could be a positive drive for change in lifestyle. The fact is that the USA has an obesity pandemic and most people's knowledge of nutritional science can be laughable at best. 60+% of Americans are overweight. And 33% are literally obese, including kids.

You do not have to buy a wearable. They are not making or forcing to you wear a wearable and they are not going to ask you to show papers before you want to enter a restaurant proving that you use or own a wearable. He said that he would prefer it because how do you empower people who know next to nothing? Is it the only way? Nope. Of course not, but the system has been so captured by interest groups that many changes may not be politically feasible.
They could be done in theory but not in practice right now. Europe had s superior take on nutrition than the USA, for example.

Personally, I would never wear a wearable but I also spent a lot of time studying Nutritional Science and attempt to leave a healthy lifestyle. It is an extra load of work that cuts into other things and not many may want to do but it is one that it is worth doing for yourself and the family.

Additionally, I have friends who are Doctors and the concept of wearables is not always well received. Privacy concerns aside, the worry is that it can turn a lot of people into hypochondriacs if they do not fully understand some basics of human anatomy and take raw data out of context. Not to mention a waste of resources if people want to run tests for absolutely everything they think might be wrong with it. It can also be a source for unnecessary stress in some people.

Having watched his actual statement, is not that they want your data. That's a red herring in the article.

But that the average American is so out of touch with how food --presumably bad, shitty food and nutrition-- interacts with their body, that them, the individual, being able to know of how, for example, that 2nd Coke, and bag of chips is screwing up your insulin levels, and how it get affected in real time could be a positive drive for change in lifestyle. The fact is that the USA has an obesity pandemic and most people's knowledge of nutritional science can be laughable at best. 60+% of Americans are overweight. And 33% are literally obese, including kids.

You do not have to buy a wearable. They are not making or forcing to you wear a wearable and they are not going to ask you to show papers before you want to enter a restaurant proving that you use or own a wearable. He said that he would prefer it because how do you empower people who know next to nothing? Is it the only way? Nope. Of course not, but the system has been so captured by interest groups that many changes may not be politically feasible.
They could be done in theory but not in practice right now. Europe had s superior take on nutrition than the USA, for example.

Personally, I would never wear a wearable but I also spent a lot of time studying Nutritional Science and attempt to leave a healthy lifestyle. It is an extra load of work that cuts into other things and not many may want to do but it is one that it is worth doing for yourself and the family.

Additionally, I have friends who are Doctors and the concept of wearables is not always well received. Privacy concerns aside, the worry is that it can turn a lot of people into hypochondriacs if they do not fully understand some basics of human anatomy and take raw data out of context. Not to mention a waste of resources if people want to run tests for absolutely everything they think might be wrong with it. It can also be a source for unnecessary stress in some people.

Having watched his actual statement, is not that they want your data. That's a red herring in the article.

But that the average American is so out of touch with how food --presumably bad, shitty food and nutrition-- interacts with their body, that them, the individual, being able to know of how, for example, that 2nd Coke, and bag of chips is screwing up your insulin levels, and how it get affected in real time could be a positive drive for change in lifestyle. The fact is that the USA has an obesity pandemic and most people's knowledge of nutritional science can be laughable at best. 60+% of Americans are overweight. And 33% are literally obese, including kids.

You do not have to buy a wearable. They are not making or forcing to you wear a wearable and they are not going to ask you to show papers before you want to enter a restaurant proving that you use or own a wearable. He said that he would prefer it because how do you empower people who know next to nothing? Is it the only way? Nope. Of course not, but the system has been so captured by interest groups that many changes may not be politically feasible.
They could be done in theory but not in practice right now. Europe had s superior take on nutrition than the USA, for example.

Personally, I would never wear a wearable but I also spent a lot of time studying Nutritional Science and attempt to leave a healthy lifestyle. It is an extra load of work that cuts into other things and not many may want to do but it is one that it is worth doing for yourself and the family.

Additionally, I have friends who are Doctors and the concept of wearables is not always well received. Privacy concerns aside, the worry is that it can turn a lot of people into hypochondriacs if they do not fully understand some basics of human anatomy and take raw data out of context. Not to mention a waste of resources if people want to run tests for absolutely everything they think might be wrong with it. It can also be a source for unnecessary stress in some people.

What about sporting insertables instead?

I'm gonna need a detailed explanation of exactly what you mean, for the purposes of clear and effective communication.

Man, I feel sick, lemme check my health watch.

status: unhealthy

Can I receive healthcare?

no

Insertables go into your butt.

What types of data does the US sell to advertisers? Do you have ANY evidence of the always listening mic? You'd figure after 10 years of this we'd have at least some evidence, right?